but in this case, ownership scares me completely. Our villain of the moment, Robert Mugabe, recently said:
"Zimbabwe is mine. I will never, never, never never surrender. Zimbabwe is mine, I am a Zimbabwean. Zimbabwe for Zimbabweans. Zimbabwe never for the British, Britain for the British," Mugabe told his party's annual conference.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081219/wl_africa_afp/zimbabwepolitics_081219142025
How in the world is Zimbabwe his? Granted, he is ruling the country but only a dictator would say a country is "his".
That should solve it for everyone...talk amongst yourselves......
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Mugabe retains the antiquated notion of monarch... From wikipedia... It's troubling but not unheard of.
In a monarchy, the Monarch is the Head of State. This is a relatively recent phenomenon; until the last few decades a sovereign was seen as the personal embodiment of the state ("L'etat c'est moi", so to speak), and therefore could not be head of himself or herself (hence many constitutions from the 19th century and earlier make no mention of a "head of state"). Though some still maintain that calling a Monarch Head of State is incorrect, it has now become a widespread political convention to attach the label to Monarchs, regardless of their political position. The TennÅ (Emperor) of Japan is defined as a symbol, not head, of state by the post-war constitution (contrasting with the former divine status) but is treated as an imperial head of state under diplomatic protocol (even ranking above kings) and retains Shinto mystique.
Post a Comment